It is a pleasure for me to be here in Ankara, and it is indeed natural to address the issues of international mediation here in Turkey.

Turkey is a leading actor on the international mediation scene. And Turkey is a close partner for Norway. We cannot have such a seminar without focusing on what is taking place in:

Syria

Just 800 kilometres south of where we are now – in Syria – we are witnessing one of the worst and most appalling conflicts and refugee crises since the Second World War.

Nowhere are the challenges in international conflict resolution demonstrated more clearly than in Syria: And so far with so few results. Even the most basic principles related to humanitarian access are not respected.

This human tragedy compels us to do our utmost to end the violence. To prepare the ground for a political settlement. And to limit the devastating consequences for the region.

The big picture

Before elaborating on four points that I consider to be important when helping to resolve a conflict situation, let me take one step back and look at the big picture for a moment.

The number of extreme poor globally has dropped by 650 million in the last decades.

But still some 1.5 billion people live in countries affected by repeated cycles of political and criminal violence.

And no low-income fragile or conflict-affected country has yet to achieve a single Millennium Development Goal.

There is no doubt: conflict is a significant hurdle to economic development and poverty reduction.

A conflict costs a developing country roughly 30 years of GDP growth.

And a country that experiences major violence has a poverty rate significantly higher than a country that has no violence.

It is therefore of utmost importance to stress the link between conflict resolution and development.

Mediation only requires small investments to yield results. It can therefore be a vital tool for reducing poverty and creating better lives for people.

Making these small investments work even more effectively should be a key objective.

Experiences

All peace processes are different. They do however have many elements in common.

As already mentioned, let me share with you four points that I consider to be important when helping to resolve a conflict situation.

They are based on our experience from a number of peace processes, from the Middle East to Sri Lanka, and most recently Colombia.

Sometimes as facilitators in a process. More often as supporters of efforts led by others, be it the UN, regional organisations or other actors.

1.

First, dialogue is crucial. Without dialogue, it is not possible to win confidence, or gain insight into the other party’s positions and thinking.

Our policy is based on values such as respect for international human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

We strongly believe in gender equality. In freedom of religion and faith. In freedom of expression.

This does not prevent us from talking to groups that have different opinions and different values. And it does not mean that we agree.

This is not a question of accepting terrorism or giving recognition to certain groups. It is a question of convincing them to enter into a political process.

There are conflicts where I believe military action is required. We are members of NATO. We took part in the military interventions in Libya and in Afghanistan.

But in most cases, a conflict cannot be solved by military means alone.

In such cases countries like Turkey and Norway have important roles to play in identifying the windows of opportunity for a political solution.

2.

Second, peace mediation requires a long-term perspective.

It is not a job for day traders. Impasses and set backs will always be a part of the process towards a peace agreement.

It takes time to get to know the parties on the ground. It takes time to understand the dynamics of the conflict.

And it takes time and patience to be able to find the right moment. The moment when the parties are ready to engage with each other.

There is broad political consensus in Norway on our peace engagement. This makes it possible for us to be a reliable partner over time.

3.

Third, inclusiveness is key. Women need to be a part of the process.

The reason is simple: Women constitute half the population in a country, often more in a country in conflict. And often they are the ones who suffer most.

The absence of women at the negotiating table tends to limit discussions on issues that affect women and girls.

Sexual violence, abuse by security forces, and maternal health care are just a few of these issues.

However, women do not only speak for women. They often bring to the table questions that are of importance to the entire population.

Ensuring the participation of women is also a question of justice. Women have the same right to influence their future as their fathers, brothers and sons.

Civil society groups, like religious leaders, business confederations also need to be included and listened to. They are needed to secure broad-based ownership and legitimacy of an agreement.

In return for greater inclusion, you are likely to see agreements that last longer and pave the way for greater stability and economic development.

Strengthening local structures can be a good way of supporting peace.

4.

The fourth point that I consider to be important when helping to resolve a conflict situation, it to draw on experience from other processes.

Research, documentation of results and systemisation of the experience gained from other processes is crucial.

Norway invests five million US dollars annually on peace research.

Norway and Turkey

Seminars like this one is contributing to the professionalization. It is also a demonstration of the broad cooperation between Norway and Turkey.

With different geopolitical and cultural backgrounds, Turkey and Norway can often play complementary roles.

As an influential regional power, you can put your weight behind a process, and sometimes be a peace broker, whereas Norway can only be a facilitator.

For Norway, it is necessary to work with regional powers when we engage in a peace process.

Turkey is a particularly interesting partner, because you engage in the region and beyond.

In Somalia, when Al Shabaab was pushed out of Mogadishu, Turkey built streets and Norway put up street lights. All with a clear political motivation: to show a peace dividend to the population, with the ownership of national and local authorities.

I think this is a good example of how we can work together effectively, also on the ground.

We share a willingness to look for innovative ways to support a process, a willingness to engage in dialogue with all the parties, and a willingness to seize opportunities to assist even if they involve considerable risk.

This seminar represents an excellent platform for debate and for developing new ideas.

We have before us today a group of seasoned and skilled practitioners and researchers on mediation and peace processes.

I am confident that the seminar will be a good opportunity to share analyses, build contacts and strengthen cooperation between our two countries in the field of peace and reconciliation.

It is not a one-off event. I hope it will foster new ideas, initiatives and concrete projects to enhance both research and practice in this important field.